State of Maine v. Penney

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. CR-02-66 | STATE OF MAINE v. ORDER ON MOTION . DONALD L. GARBRECHT SCOTT A. PENNEY, LAW LIBRARY Defendant SEP. 19 22 This matter comes before the court on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, specifically statements made by the defendant to detectives of the «"'* ~"* Winthrop Police Department and Maine State Police during an interrogation on January 19, 2002. The defendant argues his motion on two grounds: (1) that his statements were involuntary, and (2) that the officers failed to advise him of his Miranda warning prior to the statements. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Since the State concedes that no Miranda warnings were given during the questioning on January 19, the question becomes whether the defendant was in "custody" at the time of the questioning. The court finds that the State has met its burden on both issues and will deny the motion. Facts On January 19, 2002, Det. John Hall of the Winthrop Police Department, accompanied by Det. William Harwood of the Maine State Police, went to the Scandinavian Motel in Manchester, Maine. The defendant was residing at the motel and the purpose of the visit was to ask him questions about three open cases. The two detectives arrived at the motel in unmarked vehicles and were casually dressed. No firearms were displayed. When the defendant opened the door to his room, Det. Hall informed him that they were there to ask him some questions about one Jacob Mann, rather than anything having to do with Christy Gerry. The defendant motioned the detectives into his rather small room and the questioning commenced. Det. Hall recorded the majority of the questioning, but it is unclear whether the defendant was aware of this fact since the micro-cassette was in the detective's pocket. During the questioning, the door to the defendant's room was closed, but he was never informed that he was under arrest or that he was going to be arrested even though Det. Hall had that intention. The interview lasted approximately an hour and 20 minutes. Toward the end of the interview, one of the detectives asked the defendant how he felt about the interview and whether he had been fairly treated. The defendant's answer was "I guess so." At the end of the interview, the defendant was informed that he was under arrest for violation of a bail condition. Discussion With regard to the defendant's issue of voluntariness, the court is satisfied the State has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements made were voluntary. A review of a transcript of the majority of the interview (until the tape ran out) shows no indication of police coercion or anything other than the defendant's own free choice. Questioning by two detectives might have been uncomfortable, but considering the totality of the circumstances there was no internal or external coercion or compulsion which would make the defendant's subsequent statements involuntary. With regard to the issue of whether the defendant was in custody for purposes of determining whether recitation of the Miranda warning was required, the court looks for guidance to the factors set forth in State v. Michaud, 724 A.2d 1222, 1227 (Me. 1998). The issue, as stated in Michaud, is whether the defendant was either under formal arrest or had his freedom of movement restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest. There was no formal arrest prior to the statements in question. Therefore, "a court must ascertain 'whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed he was in police custody and constrained to a degree associated with formal arrest." Id. at 1226 . Here the statements were made by the defendant in his own motel room. Contact was initiated by the State. The detectives believe that they had probable cause to arrest the defendant, but this was not communicated to him. Whether entirely candid or not, the detectives expressed their intent only to help the defendant clarify his position. By the same token, the detectives’ response to the defendant's statements was generally supportive. Based on the transcript of the questioning, a reasonable person in the defendant's position might begin to feel that he was the focus of an investigation toward the end of the questioning, but not at the beginning. Questioning occurred in the defendant's own motel room. The two law enforcement officers placed no physical restraint upon the defendant. The questioning was not adversarial. Considering all of the factors set forth above and taking them as a whole, the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not in custody at the time the statements were made, therefore, no Miranda warning was necessary.’ The entry will be: Motion DENIED. Dated: September 1? , 2002 Mid lup S. Kirk Studstrup Justice, Superior Court 1 Many of the circumstances of the questioning appear to be similar to the circumstances involved in State v. Holloway, 2000 ME 172 , 760 A.2d 23 . However a comparison of the transcripts of the two interrogations would quickly reveal the differences. Holloway’s questioning was considerably more adversarial almost from the start. STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. SCOTT A PENNEY Docket No AUGSC-CR-2002-00066 15 HANSON ST WINTHROP ME 04364 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 09/14/1965 Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN State's Attorney: DAVID CROOK STRIKE GOODWIN & O'BRIEN 400 ALLEN AVENUE PORTLAND ME 04103 APPOINTED 03/19/2002 Filing Document: INDICTMENT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 03/15/2002 Charge (s) 1 GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT 11/11/1996 WINTHROP 17-A 253 (1) (B) Class A 2 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONTACT 11/11/1996 WINTHROP 17-A 255(1) (Cc) Class C 3 GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT 11/11/1997 WINTHROP 17-A 253(1) (B) Class A 4 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONTACT 11/11/1997 WINTHROP 17-A 255(1) (C) Class C 5 GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT 11/11/1998 WINTHROP 17-A 253 (1) (B) Class A 6 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONTACT 11/11/1998 WINTHROP 17-A 255(1) (Cc) Class Cc 7 GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT 11/11/1998 WINTHROP 17-A 253 (1) (B) Class A 8 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONTACT 11/11/1999 WINTHROP 17-A 255(1) (C) Class C 9 GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT 11/11/2000 WINTHROP 17-A 253(2) (H) Class B 10 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONTACT 11/11/2000 WINTHROP 17-A 255(1) (Cc) Class Cc Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 09/17/2002 SCOTT A PENNEY AUGSC-CR- 2002-00066 POCKET RECORD locket Events: 3/15/2002 FILING DOCUMENT - INDICTMENT FILED ON 03/15/2002 TRANSFER - BAIL AND PLEADING GRANTED ON 03/15/2002 TRANSFER - BAIL AND PLEADING REQUESTED ON 03/15/2002 13/15/2002 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT REQUESTED ON 03/15/2002 DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE DA: ALAN KELLEY 3/15/2002 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT ISSUED ON 03/15/2002 DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE DA: ALAN KELLEY CERTIFIED COPY TO WARRANT REPOSITORY $50,000 SURETY OR $10,000 CASH 13/15/2002 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 03/15/2002 DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE 93/15/2002 BAIL BOND - SURETY BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 03/15/2002 DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE 93/18/2002 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 03/22/2002 93/22/2002 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 03/22/2002 DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN DA: ALAN KELLEY Reporter: TIMOTHY THOMPSON Defendant Present in Court READING WAIVED. DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. COPY OF INDICTMENT/INFORMATION GIVEN TO DEFENDANT. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS 03/22/2002 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 03/22/2002 DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN DA: ALAN KELLEY Reporter: TIMOTHY THOMPSON Defendant Present in Court BAIL $50,000 SURETY OR $10,000 CASH 03/22/2002 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT EXECUTED ON 03/15/2002 ARRESTED BY CPL EVANS/KSO 03/22/2002 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT RETURNED ON 03/18/2002 03/26/2002 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 MOTION - MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 03/25/2002 Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN 04/23/2002 MOTION - MOTION FOR FUNDS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 04/18/2002 Page 2 of 4 Printed on: 09/17/2002 4/23/2002 4/26/2002 17/31/2002 18/13/2002 18/13/2002 18/19/2002 18/22/2002 09/22/2002 08/30/2002 09/16/2002 09/17/2002 SCOTT A PENNEY AUGSC-CR- 2002-00066 DOCKET RECORD Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRING A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR FOR A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $1,000.00. MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 04/18/2002 Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN FOR THE DEFENDANT - STATEMENTS MADE ON OR ABOUT 1/19/02 BY THE DEFENDANT TO STATE POLICE AND WINTHROP POLICE DEPT. MOTION - MOTION FOR FUNDS GRANTED ON 04/23/2002 JOHN R ATWOOD , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL. ORDER FOR FUNDS GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN THE ORDER.ORDER LIMITS FUNDS TO $500. COPY MAILED TO ATTORNEY GOODWIN 4/26/02. HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 08/13/2002 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL MAILED 7/23/02. LETTER - REQUEST FOR PROTECTION FILED ON 08/13/2002 FILED BY STATE, OFFICER JOHN HALL OF THE WINTHROP POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL BE UNAVAILABLE ON AUGUST 13TH AS HE WILL BE AT THE BOSTON CHILDREN HOSPITAL ON A FAMILY MATTER. LETTER - REQUEST FOR PROTECTION GRANTED ON 08/13/2002 MOTION - MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/19/2002 DEFENDANT REQUESTS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE ISSUES INVOLVING DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCY, CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, ABNORMAL CONDITION OF MIND OR ANY OTHER ISSUE INVOLVING THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL CONDITION OF THE DEFENDNT AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED CONDUCT. HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS HELD ON 08/15/2002 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN DA: PAUL RUCHA Reporter: JANETTE COOK Defendant Present in Court STATE WITNESSES; JOHN HALL AND WILLIAM HARWOOD. STATE EXHIBITS TRANSCRIPT #1A AND RECORDING #1, BOTH ACCEPTED W/O OBJECTION. DEFENSE WITNESS; SCOTT PENNEY. MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 08/15/2002 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE Attorney: THOMAS GOODWIN DA: PAUL RUCHA Reporter: JANETTE COOK Defendant Present in Court LETTER - REQUEST FOR PROTECTION FILED ON 08/30/2002 FILED BY STATE, DETECTIVE BILL HARWOOD OF THE MAINE STATE POLICE, IS UNAVAILABLE SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 22, 2002 AS HE IS SCHEDULD TO BE OUT OF STATE FOR WORK. MOTION - MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION GRANTED ON 09/12/2002 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE COPY SENT TO STATE FORENSIC SERVICE MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE DENIED ON 09/17/2002 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE : Page 3 of 4 Printed on: 09/17/2002 SCOTT A PENNEY AUGSC-CR-2002-00066 DOCKET RECORD COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk Page 4 of 4 Printed on: 09/17/2002